Hey, Lobohan said anyone who was a physicist was not a climate scientist, not me. You don’t like it, take it up with him. I’m not the one who made the claim.
I have published peer reviewed work in climate science, and I have another paper being peer reviewed as we speak.
And Lindzen, and Pielke Jr. and Sr., and Christy, and Landsea aren’t eminent? Say what? And the Japanese aren’t signing on …
No, I said that a generic physicist isn’t necessarily a climate scientist.
Are you ready to admit that Inhofe’s list is trash? Or is deflection and finger pointing the only thing you have left?
As I recall you wrote a letter to the editor. Hardly makes you the equal of someone working in the field.
From that cite (emphasis mine):
Doesn’t sound like the science is “settled” to me, as y’all love to claim.
Well, since you are 100% wrong, I guess that make you the equal of a person making a false claim, full of bullshit, and totally contrary to the facts.
Funny, I do clearly remember that you in the past dismissed a physicist for confirming that the climate models being used were good.
In any case, Hansen is working in climate research and even meteorologists continue to recognize his contributions.
(Yes, **Intention **missed who gave the award, there was another reason why I put that cite, but I was not surprised to see that he completely missed it)
You should take a moment to read the quote. Go on, I’ll wait. 
You continually move the goal posts and proffer the lies of an idiot (Inhofe) as proof. Why do you have to resort to such underhanded tactics to support your beliefs?
Look at your list above. Based solely on their listed education (“physicist”, “geologist”, “Professor of Ecology”, etc.) you claim that they are not climate scientists. Your claim, not mine. Are you ready to admit that your categories are bullshit? Or is deflection and finger pointing the only thing you have left?
Was it not you? I suppose it was some other conspiracy theory devotee on the board. My apologies.
Please link to an abstract of your article.
I read the quote when it was posted. What is your point?
And as I said, I don’t care if Inhofe is a mass murderer. Unlike you, I don’t rely on underhanded tactics like ad hominem arguments.
No, it’s your argument that is bullshit. Inhofe’s list has been soundly discredited and you’re only looking a fool by trying to shore it up. A physicist who isn’t working in climate science isn’t qualified to assess the state of the art in climate science.
I suggest you take a look here: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/Data_Set_for_web_viewing.pdf [<– PDF warning] so you can stop blindly parroting the 700 list.
You don’t understand what ad hominem means. Inhofe has a list that is a collection of some very few anti global warming climate scientists, many unqualified scientists, and many outright non-scientists. It also has selectively cropped the statements of people who think AGW is happening and mis-characterized what they said. It’s not an ad hominem attack to suggest that a list you’re proffering as fact is full of lies and does not say what you are saying it does.
I frankly find it amazing that you could be blindly ideological that you refuse to see that.
Conspiracy theory devotee? Are you off your head? I have never once said that there is any kind of conspiracy going on, not once. That’s just another of your perverted fantasies. That is a sleazy tactic, to claim that I am a devotee of conspiracy theories. Give me a citation to me claiming a conspiracy, or apologize. That’s fucking sick. I am as far from a conspiracy theorist as you can find.
First link to an abstract of your article …
What is this, dueling abstracts? This is nonsense. Again you want to make another ad hominem argument.
The issue is not whether you or I have published more or less. It is whether the arguments we advance are scientifically valid. That’s all science cares about. Einsteins theory was not accepted because he had a whole heap of publications before he advanced E=MC2. It was accepted because it was correct. The same is true of you and I. The issue is whether what you or I say is correct, not how many publications we have under our belts.
You think that AGW isn’t true. The vast majority of climate scientists find it to be supported by the evidence we have. Some very few say this is not the case. You are proposing a conspiracy of the vast majority of climate scientists to silence the few truthful (as you see them). Histrionics do little to win others to your case.
No, you made a claim that you are have a peer-reviewed article published on climate science. If you did, then you at least would be one person who could go on Inhofe’s list.
I’m not a scientist. I don’t publish papers. I’m saying that the vast majority of people who are qualified to judge AGW find your view to be in the far minority. Why should one believe you when all your side has is a literal handful of qualified scientists arrayed with an army of crackpots?
Nope, it just demonstrates that once again you can not differentiate a good source from a bad one, she is not denying the science behind AGW; as the cite mentioned, and you ignored, she is concentrating on the misuse of AGW research applied to Hurricane research.
Simpson’s skeptical attitude was born of her quest for the purity of the meteorologist’s craft and the wild exaggerations of some that propose that there is solid evidence that we can with certainty blame hurricane activity to AGW, not yet with the current level of research IMHO, but getting closer. In the end it is very clear to me that the Dr. is not doubting that global warming is happening and we need to address it.
By Your Cites Shall Ye Be Known.
You know what this argument needs? A hippy! With the groundless optimism and the cheerful enthusiasm that made being us so much fun. My buddy Pete is about the only one I know who has remained truly faithful, but I don’t think he posts here, so I’ll just have to fill in as best I can. Groovy.
The bad news is there is every likelihood that we have a problem. Not end of the world, that’s silly, the world will spin along much the same without us, and many, many years hence scientists will examine our history, and clack their mandibles together in approval and gratitude.
The good news is that there isn’t an answer. The good news is that there are lots and lots of answers, some of which we know, some of which we don’t, and some of which we haven’t the foggiest.
If we pour oodles and gobs of money into ecological and energy research (like we screamed at you guys to do forty fucking years ago! but I digress…), if we make that huge investment, we are going to find out a bunch of really, really good stuff. We know something about how to turn sunlight into kilowatts, we could know a lot more. How to produce clean energy from bio-sources, how to create bio-sources tailored to circumstances. Is green, clean energy possible? What kind of idiot wouldn’t try and find out? Well, us, for the most part.
So, if it turns out, in the fullness of time, that we decide that our fears of climate change were overblown somewhat, but in the meantime we hit the Einstein jackpot, we nurture the genius that shouts the “Eureka” that saves the world that Jack built.
Point being, it may very well be that even if we have our doubts about the gravity of the problem, there is a lot to be gained by assuming the problem is as bad as we think, if we find a way to solve that problem, we will solve a whole bunch of other problems. On Spaceship Earth, energy is the only currency that really matters. If we have enough cheap, green clean energy, the poorest amongst us will suffer only minor inconveniences, “poverty” will cease to have any meaning, we may forget what “starve” ever meant.
So, maybe it turns out to be wrong, or exaggerated. Remember The Mouse That Roared? How the deadly Q-Bomb turned out to be a dud, but had averted war and secured peace, even though it was a mistake? “The best bomb ever made”, wasn’t that the line?
Groovy.
You told us about your 2004 three-sentence Brief Communication Arising in Nature, a comment on a Letter to Nature (to which the letter’s authors offered a rebuttal), back in this May 2006 thread (the links start with post #57).
No, it’s not a “letter to the editor”, but it’s not exactly an independent research paper either. There’s no shame in that, and it’s certainly closer than most of us here have ever got or ever expect to get to publishing peer-reviewed independent research on climate science, but I think it’s fair for Lobohan to argue that it is not the equivalent of a significant research publication.
Best of luck with the review for your new publication, btw!
It is not ad hominem to attack the list. If you did that we wouldn’t be discussing ad hominem attacks. But that’s not what you do. You say that I
So I’d say, since you attack Inhofe to try to discredit a list of quotations, rather than find fault with a single quotation, that you don’t understand what ad hominem means.